We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Inconsidererate, aggressive, but not necessarily dangerous. Report?
Comments
-
BolloxI believe mirrors can, for a cyclist, be more hindrance than help.
The best way to cope with a near miss overtake is to try to stay straight. If you are forewarned by your mirror that a car is likely to pass too closely there will be a tendency to urgently move to the nearside to try to provide more space for the overtaker. This instinctive move may put you into the drains, potholes etc that your previous position was meant to avoid, which may cause you to lose control, fall, or worse still, swing back into the road.
Mirrors may also deter you from taking a good look behind at times when a physical look behind is the best option. Mirrors can be deceptive in terms of distance and approach speed. you can also miss stuff in blind spots.
...and cyclistsYou also think trains should stop at level crossings for cars...mad mocs - the pavement worrier0 -
modsandmockers wrote: »Safe? I don't think so...
It's as safe a system as we cyclists have when cycling on the road. As a cyclist becomes more confident and assertive, it becomes more second nature, because it makes sense.
If Tobster had been a foot from the kerb, notwithstanding he'd be riding over drains and through debris, drivers like the BMW driver would still pass closely, making his situation much more dangerous. Driver's like the mutt in this BMW have no knowledge or interest in what keeps a cyclist safe; so the defined (primary & secondary) positions allow the cyclist to improve their safety using their knowledge of how motorists behave around them.
So Tobster's metre out secondary position caused the BMW to put his nearside mirror about 20-30cm from Tobster's right arm, which means that Tobster had about 1.2 metres of road left to recover in. Had Tobster been 30cm from the road edge, the amount of wiggle room left would have reduced to about 0.5 metres, mostly through drains and debris. That is not a safe strategy.Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.0 -
What's the point in me answering if you think i'm biased? But if you want my answer I reckon (from the footage) about 4 to 5ft. But surely only the OP knows the actual answer so where are you going with this?
The video shows Tobster in his secondary position, maintaining a fairly steady line. It also shows that his (wheel-line) position is about a metre out from the kerb . Google maps shows the road to be about 6.6 metres wide, so each lane is about 3.3 metres. The camera is positioned approximately 2/7 of the width of the lane from the nearside.
(simple analysis)
For me, there are two significant issues that have arisen from this thread.
The first is that some people seek to find fault in the observed cycling. This cycling is precisely as advised by cyclecraft, which is endorsed by DfT - the sway is insignificant, and entirely as expected from someone doing 20mph. There is absolutely nothing about Tobster's cycling that should warrant criticism.
The second is that some motorists find this overtaking gap of undoubtedly less than 0.5 metres acceptable, particularly given the high differential speed. It shows that many motorists don't realise or don't care that a decent overtaking gap is required for very good reasons. It seems the reason they don't care is that the 'very good reasons' are to do with cyclist safety, rather than the convenience of motorists.Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.0 -
modsandmockers wrote: »Bollox
I'm unsurprised that this is the best you can do.Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.0 -
If you’re sitting comfortably, let me tell you a story…
Most Sunday mornings, I traverse my local 20mph zone on foot in order to catch an 0930 bus to meet the family, and there is a very popular bike ride which meets close to the bus stops also at 0930.
Today, I started early so that I could pause in order to watch the behaviour of the cyclists as they headed for the meet. I would estimate that only one in every 3 or 4 looked behind themselves at any point in the quarter-mile or so of their approach to the right turn which leads them to their destination. They come through in groups of 1,2 or 3, and their road positioning is completely random. On one occasion, a single cyclist moved to the right into the path of a group of 2 or 3, and caused the group to swerve onto the wrong side of the road - this caused much hilarity.
The highway is not a playground.
Today, the family meet was at the top of Campbell Park, Milton Keynes, and early in the walk there is a sheep-grid with ‘kissing’ gates. We were 4 adults, an eight-year-old on a bike, a five-year-old on a scooter, a two-year-old on foot and a baby in a sling. There were two buggies. Getting that lot through is complicated, but the mountain biker who came through at full speed did not appear to notice our presence.
That’s what I mean by ‘bollox’.mad mocs - the pavement worrier0 -
modsandmockers wrote: »If you’re sitting comfortably, let me tell you a story…
Most Sunday mornings, I traverse my local 20mph zone on foot in order to catch an 0930 bus to meet the family, and there is a very popular bike ride which meets close to the bus stops also at 0930.
Today, I started early so that I could pause in order to watch the behaviour of the cyclists as they headed for the meet. I would estimate that only one in every 3 or 4 looked behind themselves at any point in the quarter-mile or so of their approach to the right turn which leads them to their destination. They come through in groups of 1,2 or 3, and their road positioning is completely random. On one occasion, a single cyclist moved to the right into the path of a group of 2 or 3, and caused the group to swerve onto the wrong side of the road - this caused much hilarity.
The highway is not a playground.
Today, the family meet was at the top of Campbell Park, Milton Keynes, and early in the walk there is a sheep-grid with ‘kissing’ gates. We were 4 adults, an eight-year-old on a bike, a five-year-old on a scooter, a two-year-old on foot and a baby in a sling. There were two buggies. Getting that lot through is complicated, but the mountain biker who came through at full speed did not appear to notice our presence.
That’s what I mean by ‘bollox’.
Lots of motorists break the speed limit, park on double yellow lines and drive through amber / red lights when they could stop.
Lots of pedestrians walk in front of traffic without looking and when cars are almost on top of them. Some even see the cars and just walk in front of them anyway
The point is you get idiots and inconsiderate people on the roads regardless of their choice in transport but it would be wrong for me to assume that just because some people are idiots and walk in front of cars that all pedestrians must behave the same.All your base are belong to us.0 -
Clearly the only solution is for all cyclists to switch to very wide and very slow tractors.
Obviously fitted with lots of mirrors!0 -
Would that be the primary position, or the secondary?Retrogamer wrote: »Lots of pedestrians walk in front of traffic without looking and when cars are almost on top of them. Some even see the cars and just walk in front of them anywaymad mocs - the pavement worrier0 -
modsandmockers wrote: »If you’re sitting comfortably, let me tell you a story…
Most Sunday mornings, I traverse my local 20mph zone on foot in order to catch an 0930 bus to meet the family, and there is a very popular bike ride which meets close to the bus stops also at 0930.
Today, I started early so that I could pause in order to watch the behaviour of the cyclists as they headed for the meet. I would estimate that only one in every 3 or 4 looked behind themselves at any point in the quarter-mile or so of their approach to the right turn which leads them to their destination. They come through in groups of 1,2 or 3, and their road positioning is completely random. On one occasion, a single cyclist moved to the right into the path of a group of 2 or 3, and caused the group to swerve onto the wrong side of the road - this caused much hilarity.
The highway is not a playground.
Today, the family meet was at the top of Campbell Park, Milton Keynes, and early in the walk there is a sheep-grid with ‘kissing’ gates. We were 4 adults, an eight-year-old on a bike, a five-year-old on a scooter, a two-year-old on foot and a baby in a sling. There were two buggies. Getting that lot through is complicated, but the mountain biker who came through at full speed did not appear to notice our presence.
That’s what I mean by ‘bollox’.
If you mean what you've written is an example of 'bollox,' I wouldn't entirely agree with you.
Granted, it is pointless anecdote, but it gives us a little insight into what you do with your Sundays. It doesn't address any of the points I raised that you earlier described as bollox...
...but I understand it, and it has a smidgen of topical reference.
So don't put yourself down too much. :whistle:Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454K Spending & Discounts
- 244.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.3K Life & Family
- 258.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards